About The TURKS

[sapi]

We could keep debating about rifle inconsistencies, favourite factions and the degeneration of English grammar for as long as we like, but that'd be, quite frankly, stupid.

As econ pointed out, we're all quite free to debate history here, but we are not free to simply say "my favourite faction is better than yours - so there!", and nor are we free to criticise other members simply because we disagree with them.

We're looking for a nice, civilised debate here, not a mob ;)

To the topic at hand (and here i'm stopping myself from mentioning that there's no such word as 'unorganisation'), it's quite likely that the numbers of the crusading forces were exaggerated both to increase the glory felt through victory and reduce the shame of defeat.

As to the crusaders falling apart, you have to remember that we're talking about diverse armies consisting of both professional troops and volunteers (bear with me, my history is a bit shaky) from literally a dozen european kingdoms united only by a flaky goal and without a central leadership facing off against a united, professional army in the Turkish.

The only reason the crusades were as successful as they were was that the Muslims were disorganised - once they obtained a central leadership it all came crumbling down.

And correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't recall any cases of a crusade falling to pieces before reaching Constantinople - the (fourth?) one may have taken the city, but i don't know of any that failed to make it that far...

my 2c